Very happy to defer to Brian's wishes. The document has been widely cited as a draft of course, but final publication will make it even easier to point people at. I suspect we'll end up referring to is by RFCnumber rather than name as it'll be easier to say (like 2775 or 3041).[BTW if NAT can apparently be confused with NAP in discussion, I wonder whether LNP's other common meaning will cause confusion that the draft formerly known as NAP has something to do with number portability forIPv6]--
This is one of the reasons that I was not happy with the new LNP name. I was afraid that it might be confused with renumbering networks or local number portability - both of which are out of scope for this working group. On the other hand I know that the IPv6 Forum is already talking about the draft and is eagerly awaiting publication as an RFC so it can be made into a white paper and used in business cases. An RFC number is more impressive than a draft.
But right now the important thing is to get it published.